Army gives final approval to Savannah deepening

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced Saturday that Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy signed the Record of Decision for the project Friday.

The $652 million project will deepen the navigation channel from its current 42-foot depth to a 47-foot depth to accommodate more heavily loaded vessels and the larger container ships expected with the expansion of the Panama Canal.

“We couldn’t be more excited to have a Record of Decision,” said Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority. “This is something a lot of people have worked very hard on for the last 15 years. The fact that the announcement came earlier than expected is evidence of how critical this project is to advancing commerce and the economic health of the nation.”

The decision, which follows by about six months the issuance of the corps’ final report recommending the project, had been expected in November.

With the Record of Decision in hand, Foltz said Georgia Ports and the corps will continue to work together to finalize spending limits and begin environmental mitigation.

“A lot of the preparatory work can begin immediately, with construction under way no later than mid-2013,” he said.

The project is on track to be completed in 2016, though it still faces opposition. Lawmakers in South Carolina, which shares the Savannah River with Georgia, have opposed the harbor deepening in Savannah. South Carolina, after a rancorous internal debate, did not issue a water quality permit for the project. Environmental groups have filed three legal challenges to the project that are pending in South Carolina courts.

“The corps has said this project is not necessary to maintain or increase Georgia’s port business,” said Chris DeScherer, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “In light of its extreme cost and significant environmental problems it looks like the no action alternative is the best alternative.”

Savannah is the fourth busiest container port in the nation.

As ports around the region, including Charleston and Jacksonville, all race to deepen, environmental groups have also called for a regional analysis to pinpoint where the federal money would best benefit the nation with the least environmental impact.

Independent experts have said only one port in the south Atlantic needs to be deepened in the wake of the Panama Canal expansion, DeScherer said.

“The corps’ decision to evaluate in isolation is a major concern,” he said.

That corps estimates the benefit to cost ratio of the project at 5.5:1, with net annual benefits estimated at $174 million.

“We’ve been confident all along that this project with its strong benefit-to-cost ratio would go forward but at the end of the day having that record of decision feels great,” Foltz said.

Critics point out that it’s not clear who will pocket those millions.

“The corps has declined to determine what interests will benefit,” DeScherer said. “Is it folks in this country or foreign manufacturers and shippers? The value of the goods we import is higher than the value of the exports. The corps should have determined who would benefit given the enormous cost to the taxpayers and the environment.”

While the Georgia Ports Authority prides itself on Savannah’s balanced import to export ratio, that balance refers to the weight or volume of the goods. If instead the value of the goods is considered, imports outstrip exports with about $34.4 billion worth of foreign goods coming into the port in 2010 and $24.3 billion of domestic goods going out, according to World Port Source.

Corps spokesman Billy Birdwell said the Record of Decision notifies Congress that its requirements for the project have been fulfilled. Three other federal agencies Congressionally mandated to evaluate the deepening — the Department of the Interior, Commerce Department and the Environmental Protection Agency — have already provided approvals.

“The Record of Decision affirms that deepening Savannah harbor to 47 feet is economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and in the best interests of the nation,” said Col. Jeffrey Hall, Savannah District commander and District Engineer.

Before actual dredging or any construction related to mitigation can begin, Congress must approve an increase in the project cost from $230 million, which was approved in 1999, to the current estimate of $652 million. Also, Georgia and the federal government must work out a cost share agreement with Georgia paying 30 percent. It’s anticipated that the agreement will enable the state to use its own funds to begin construction.

“The federal share and the state share are supposed to come at the same time in proportion,” Birdwell said. “We have to figure out a way to use more Georgia money (until the federal appropriation comes through). Before that’s done we’re not able to do any construction. Detailed engineering can be done. But to build up the dikes at the disposal site or put a backhoe in the ground at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam that will take a while.”

The work at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam will be a fish bypass to mitigate for the loss of habitat for two species of endangered sturgeon in the estuary. It’s part of the project’s $311 million mitigation package that also includes, among many other features, a controversial plan to mechanically pump oxygen into the water.